273 A.3d 458
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2022Background:
- Defendant Jason M. O'Donnell was indicted under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 for allegedly agreeing during his 2018 Bayonne mayoral campaign to accept $10,000 from an attorney in exchange for appointing that attorney Bayonne's tax attorney if elected.
- Defendant lost the election and never assumed the mayoral office; he moved to dismiss the indictment arguing the bribery statute does not reach unsuccessful candidates.
- The trial judge granted dismissal, relying in part on United States v. Manzo, which read the statute’s "no-defense" clause as inapplicable to bribe recipients who lacked present ability to perform.
- The State appealed; the Appellate Division reviewed the statute’s plain language, its common-law lineage, and prior New Jersey decisions interpreting the bribery statute broadly.
- The court concluded N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 applies to "persons" (not only officeholders), the no-defense provision bars the defense that the target lacked authority or had not assumed office, and therefore an unsuccessful candidate can be criminally liable for accepting a bribe.
- The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 criminalizes bribe acceptance by an unsuccessful candidate | Statute uses broad word "person," covers agreements "for the performance of official duties," prior NJ cases support candidates' liability | Statute refers to "public servant/official" and official acts; candidates not mentioned and cannot perform duties when bribed | The statute covers candidates, successful or not; candidates may be prosecuted for accepting bribes |
| Scope of the statute's "no-defense" provision (does it bar claim that target lacked authority or hadn’t assumed office?) | The no-defense clause is unqualified and applies to all prosecutions, barring the defense that the target lacked authority or had not assumed office | Manzo held the clause applied only to bribe offerors, not recipients; thus an unsuccessful candidate may rely on lack of present authority | The no-defense provision applies to both givers and receivers; inability to perform (e.g., not elected) is not a defense |
| Whether rule of lenity requires dismissal | Not applicable because statute is not ambiguous; prior NJ decisions gave notice that candidates are within reach | Argues ambiguity and reliance on Manzo justify lenity in defendant’s favor | Rule of lenity does not apply; statute interpreted plainly and prior NJ authority supports State's position |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellis, 33 N.J.L. 102 (Sup. Ct. 1868) (articulates broad common-law rule that bribery is complete on offer/agreement and need not show ability to perform)
- State v. Schenkolewski, 301 N.J. Super. 115 (App. Div. 1997) (holds neither offeror nor recipient need be a public official; liability if recipient created understanding he could influence official matters)
- State v. Ferro, 128 N.J. Super. 353 (App. Div. 1974) (statute’s use of "person" shows Legislature intended broad reach beyond officeholders)
- State v. Woodward, 298 N.J. Super. 390 (App. Div. 1997) (candidate convicted where money exchanged for promise of job; confirms candidates are subject to bribery statute)
- United States v. Manzo, 851 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D.N.J. 2012) (federal district court read the no-defense clause narrowly; Appellate Div. rejects this interpretation)
- State v. Begyn, 34 N.J. 35 (1961) (discusses reciprocity of bribery offense—giver and taker both culpable)